2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 14 Ayes: 5 656 Nays: 0 657 Motion carried. 658 b. PROJECT FILE 0017 659 Request by the Roseville Planning Division to adopt new regulations for 660 Title 10, Zoning Regulations of the City Code pertaining to the PARK AND 661 RECREATION DISTRICT 662 Acting Chair Boerigter noted continuation of the Public Hearing for Planning File 663 10-017 at 9:03 p.m. 664 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the PARK AND RECREATIONAL 665 DISTRICT standards as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action 666 dated October 27, 2010. Mr. Paschke noted additional revisions had been 667 provided as an e-mail to Commissioners following distribution of the meeting 668 packet, and were attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Paschke noted 669 that this section of the proposed zoning code was differentiated from the 670 remainder of the code based on the recently-updated Master Plan process for 671 the City’s parks and recreation facilities. 672 Member Boerigter clarified that, if a project was approved in the Park Master 673 Plan, it was a permitted use even if otherwise identified on the Table of Uses as 674 needing a Conditional Use, with Mr. Paschke responding affirmatively. Mr. 675 Paschke noted that the additional “Y’s” in the chart had been eliminated, and 676 while a use may still require the Conditional Use process, it may not require 677 specific or onerous standards under which to judge a project. 678 Member Boerigter questioned if the Parks and Recreation Department had 679 commented on these design standards. 680 Mr. Paschke advised that the Planning Department staff had been working 681 cooperatively with Parks and Recreation Department staff; however, he was not 682 sure they supported them, and preferred no specific standards. Mr. Paschke 683 advised that Planning staff could not support such a document without 684 regulations or standards for Cit parks; and the inability to issue a permit without a 685 basis for allowing a use or being able to regulate a specific use on a specific 686 property. 687 Member Boerigter suggested that, if indicated, the City could do away with 688 design standards. 689 Mr. Paschke disagreed, questioning how any section of code could be eliminated 690 without standard zoning requirements beyond building standards with which to 691 regulate use. 692 Member Boerigter questioned if the Parks and Recreation Commission had 693 commented specifically on these design standards. 694 Mr. Paschke advised that, due to timing, it had yet to be brought before them, but 695 a final draft was planned for their November 4, 2010 Parks and Recreation 696 Commission meeting to receive their recommendations. 697 Member Boerigter specifically addressed proposed language that trash storage 698 areas be enclosed as opposed to trash cans currently located in parks. 699 Mr. Paschke advised that the attempt was that this section’s design standards 700 were similar to and consistent, as much as applicable, to commercial or multi- 701 family uses; and addressing dumpsters located at different park and recreation 702 uses throughout the City, and did not address refuse containers along pathways 703 throughout the park system. 704